A CCM superstar and two archbishops go into a videoconference

Today’s email blast includes an invitation from the ACNA for discounted registration to Keith and Kirsten Getty’s annual conference on contemporary worship music. I was surprised to learn that the Gettys (denominational affiliation unknown) have become the official CCM (and perhaps hymn) suppliers to the ACNA.

I mean no respect to the Gettys’ obvious songwriting, performing and business abilities. The planned tribute to Anglican theologian and BCP/ESV editor James Innell Packer (1926-2020) is also well-deserved.

However, I’m not just used to a performer being endorsed by a denomination unless there’s a clear denominational affinity/membership involved. If the conference weren’t $150 (with the discount), I might just go to find out what’s a happenin’.

---

Join Fellow Anglicans at the Getty Music Worship Conference: Sing! Global 2020, Aug. 30- Sept 2

Each year, Keith and Kristyn Getty – friends of the Province and known for their modern hymns such as “In Christ Alone,” “The Power of the Cross,” and “Speak O Lord” - host the Sing! Worship Conference. This year’s conference will feature a particular focus on the beauty of structured prayer and the Anglican liturgy.  Due to the current pandemic, the conference has been moved to an online format and will take place August 30 – September 2. Registrants will have access to all content for 90 days after the conference.

The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, Archbishop Emeritus of the Anglican Church in North America, will lead a special seminar entitled “Scripture Arranged for Worship: Singing the Book of Common Prayer.” In tribute to his life and ministry, a never-before-seen legacy interview with Dr. J.I. Packer (recorded 2018) covering topics from the importance of personal holiness to modern liturgy will be shown. And, don’t miss the conversation with Keith Getty, Archbishop Foley Beach, and Archbishop Robert Duncan on the formative power of singing the Word.

Keith and Kristyn Getty are doing great work to help deepen worship and train church leaders around the world.  Their organization has worked closely with the Anglican Church in North America and Archbishop Beach in the past to bring quality training on liturgy, music, and artistry to the global family of God’s people.

Because of the special relationship between the Gettys and the Province, members of the Anglican Church in North America can receive a 30% discount on registration for the conference by following this link - http://bit.ly/singacna

To learn more about the Sing! Global online conference, including a list of speakers and schedule, please visit www.gettymusicworshipconference.com. Don't miss this opportunity to grow deeper in your faith and learn from pastors, musicians, and artists from around the world!

What can you expect at Sing! Global 2020? Sermons from trusted expositors on the wonder and power of the Word of God. Practical talks and interviews on how Scripture informs every aspect of corporate and family worship and fuels evangelism and missions. Over 60 breakout sessions on preaching, prayer, congregational singing, liturgy, hymn writing, family devotions, and the doctrine of the Word. Songs led by musicians committed to doctrinal depth and Christ-exalting hymnody. This event will also showcase the unity of the church as we are led in sung worship from six continents! Registration includes access to all content for 90 days so you can catch up and go deeper.

A Conversation with Keith Getty, Archbishop Robert Duncan & Archbishop Foley Beach

Church musicians have thousands of reasons to shine

Jonathan Aigner asked which praise song readers would like to ban. I put it to a vote of experienced church musicians, and the clear “winner” was “Shine, Jesus, Shine.”

A week ago, Aigner (a Methodist church music director) offered a thought experiment: if there were a charitable auction to ban (at least temporarily) one contemporary worship song, what would you pick. Here's a brief summary of his impassioned argument:

I wish I could ban the whole money-grubbing, golden calf-creating, pop star-copying, Spirit-impersonating, consumer audience-targeting worship industry, but I can’t. Not by myself, at least. I can’t even ban one whole song. But it might make for a fun blog post and some decent discussion.

After an hour or so of thinking, I came up with a mile-long list of dumb “worship” songs. But then it hit me. While there are a ton of crappy contemporary worship songs, there is one that I hate on a deeply visceral level, more than any other crappy worship song that has been inflicted on the church during the recent commercial worship hijacking.

The year was 1993. It was a simpler time. A 21-year-old, soprano-singing Thris Comlin had yet to ruin his first hymn. And most of us were blissfully unaware of the derivative musical empire that was being erected in the land down under. Darlene “Too Many Consonants, Not Enough Vowels” Zschzschzschech penned a cute little ditty for her “worship team” to sing at Hillsong Church in Sydney.

It was called “Shout to the Lord.”

This sort of concern is a major thread on a closed Facebook group of traditional church musicians. I put it to a vote, nominating four songs. Three are perennially popular — Shout to the Lord, Ten Thousand Reasons, In Christ Alone — while King of My Heart is a more recent CCM hit. Providentially, I left the poll open for others to add options.

The Votes Are In

I got 238 votes — 228 for specific songs and 10 that said “all of the above”. One song clearly won going away: “Shine, Jesus, Shine.” Below are the 21 nominees and the number of hymnals that include each hymn (according to Hymnary.org).

Votes	Song	Author	Date	Hymnals
42.1%	Shine, Jesus, Shine	Graham Kendrick	1987	31
12.7%	Gather Us In	Marty Haugen	1982	32
8.3%	Ten Thousand Reasons (Bless the Lord, O my Soul)	Matt Redman	2011	3
6.1%	All are Welcome	Marty Haugen	1995	17
5.7%	Lord of the Dance	Sydney Carter	1963	41
4.4%	Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)	(Hillsong)	2013
3.9%	Here I Am, Lord	Dan Shutte	1981	47
3.1%	Good, Good Father	Chris Tomlin	2015
2.2%	On Beagle's Wings (aka On Eagle’s Wings, aka the “You Who” song)	Michael Joncas	1977	4
1.8%	Amazing Grace	John Newton	1779	1,230
1.8%	I Am The Bread of Life	Suzanne Toolan	1966	23
1.8%	In Christ Alone	Keith Getty, Stuart Townend	2002	14
1.3%	Come, Now Is the Time to Worship	Brian Doerksen	1977
0.9%	Shout to the Lord	(Hillsong)	1993
0.9%	One Bread, One Body	John Foley	1978	26
0.9%	All Praise and Worship
0.4%	Strong and Constant	Frank Andersen	1973
0.4%	Companions On the Journey	Carey Landry	1985
0.4%	I Sing a Song of the Saints of God	Lesbia Scott	1929	22
0.4%	I'm Trading My Sorrows	Darrell Evans	1998	1
0.4%	King of My Heart	Bethel Music	2016

Even with this strong showing, there was disagreement among the musicians. Clearly many if not most of the musicians knew only a handful of these nominees, and so voted for the worst of the ones they know. For example, with the California ACNA parishes and diocesan activities where I have sometimes worshipped, the musical lingua franca are “In Christ Alone” and “Ten Thousand Reasons”; the latter was a communion hymn for a 2015 consecration. I voted for this one not because it’s the worst, but because I’ve seen it (and the catchy ear worm chorus) turn a worship service into a chance for people to rock out.

Some of the CCM big names are there: Hillsong (as nominated by Aigner), Marty Haugen (two nominations), Graham Kendrick and Matt Redman (for some very good Reasons). Interestingly, almost 10% went to six post-Vatican II Catholic hymns from 1966-1985. One is a former Jesuit with a controversial lifestyle while the other is a current member of the S.J. A third is by a (then) nun, while I believe the other three authors are priests

As Sesame Street would say, one of these things is not like the other; one of these things just doesn’t belong. With 1000+ hymnals, the 240-year-old “Amazing Grace” is a legitimate Christian hymn, even if a highly emotive one that some find trite or cliché.

While I thought I’d never say this, I’d like to add a word of defense for Mr. Kendrick. Like others, I find it objectionable for a worship service, but a music scholar I respect (who may not want to be associated with this blog) said that it was never intended for this purpose. She said it was originally used for evangelization at Christian street festival in England (although that’s not what the semi-official history says). If that’s the case, then I can’t fault the author or composer for bringing it into worship, but instead (as with any other song taken off the radio) would point to the music director or even the pastor.

It's a Free Country

In reading over the visceral objections to Aigner’s posting, I want to argue my own point of view (if not necessarily his or the voters in the poll). All of us are voting for things we don’t like and (I believe in most cases) are inappropriate for a worship service. However, in the consumer-driven American church marketplace, in a big enough city just about everyone can find a church that suits their worship preferences. So all the people who love these songs — including some of my closer friends — are free to rock out to them this Sunday or any other Sunday, no matter what Aigner or 238 Facebook subscribers say.

It also appeared that some of the readers didn’t realize that blogs — particularly like other humorous commentaries — are often exaggerated for effect. I hope that no one actually reading what was written would conclude that Aigner (or the gang of 238) thinking that demon worship is preferable (or equivalent) to singing one of these songs. 

The idolatry of the Holy Screen

Last month I attended a blended service that uses the ACNA liturgy, Hymnal 1982 hymns and praise songs. As blended services go, it was probably the most tastefully done that I’ve seen — either because of the sensibilities of the music director, or because he (and the rector) don’t think hymns should be second class citizens.

So with blended worship done well, what was jarring was the projection screen. I’ve seen plenty of them (alas even in churches), but I’ve never been a member of a church that uses them every week.

One of the limitations is the one that I remarked previously: hymnal-free is harmony free. I knew one of the hymns well enough from memory to (more or less) sing the harmony without music, but otherwise I felt cheated of a chance to sing praise to God utilizing the gifts He has given me (and also staying within my vocal range).

The other limitation is one that I’d only briefly noticed before. As the Gospel reading was processed to the center of the church, it is customary for the congregation to turn and face the Gospel and the deacon (or in this case, the priest). However, as at home, everyone’s attention was firmly fixed on the screen for the duration of the gradual. (As it turns out, they were also fixed on the screen for the text of the Gospel reading — I didn’t notice because I tend to focus on the reader and not on reading the text).

So to our 21st century sanctuaries we have brought the key cultural artifact of  online culture. Instead of the Word or the Cross, we now turn our attention and adoration to the Holy Screen. This might seem harsh — but just watch how the H.S. changes the worship experience.

The screen was supplemented with a four page (two sides of one piece of paper) handout that included the text and music for the Gloria (H82: S280), the gradual hymn, and the four-part offertory. People could have used the handout to face the Gospel book, but only some of the congregation picked it up beforehand.

I talked to the music director afterwards, and have a little more empathy for his difficult choices — both on distributing the text and (someday) the music. The handout doesn’t include everything to save money, and those who don’t read music probably won’t pick up the handout (so he needs to provide lyrics some other way).

Long term, they use too many praise hymns to get by with just a hymnal. He would like to put together a booklet of hymns and praise songs, but the musical canon of this young church is still (at least somewhat) evolving.

I am used to the hymnal + prayer book fumbling and find it strangely comforting. However, it really only works if you’ve memorized the service music as fumbling for three (or four hymns) is different from going back and forth between the prayer and the sanctus etc.

As Anglican churches continue to attract both non-Christians and non-liturgical Christians, I understand the need to make the service more approachable to visitors. I would argue that having a regular member help the confused visitor next to them is a better solution than any paper or technology.

That said, I do think my church (and other similar churches) have come up with the most reasonable compromise:

• Fixed service booklets (perhaps different ones for Ordinary Time, penitential and festal seasons) that include both the prayers and the service music (words and notes)
• A weekly insert of 4-8 pp. that includes the collect, Scripture readings and the hymn numbers — and a copy of any hymns not in the hymnal
• A hymnal for most (or all) of the hymns

If a church had a booklet instead of a hymnal, it could substitute for the latter. Personally, I hope to continue at a hymnal church for another 30-40 years, but we will see.

Longer term, some have suggested we should have e-books instead of paper books, booklets or inserts. It might work with a 6-10" screen, but the 4" screen of the typical cellphone is not very practical for this purpose. There is also the question of whether we want to further privilege the Holy Screen in our worship, or to say to newcomers without phones that they are not welcome.

So today’s use of screens for music and liturgy seems to be a short-term expedient, particularly for churches who can’t buy a set of books, don’t want to drag them each week to a temporary rented space, or are unwilling to commit to singing the same music two years in a row.

We will have a more elegant technical solution by the end of this century, but for now I think this compromise is a reasonable one.

What's not to like about praise music?

At a recent ACNA workshop, one of the hosts thought it would be a good idea to bring in a guitarist and play some praise songs. This helped crystalize some of my thoughts about what’s not to like about praise music.

I’ll admit an Anglo-Catholic critique of Evangelical music might be a bit biased, but at least it’s a starting point for a conversation about the bad (and perhaps good) of contemporary worship.  I will also try (as best I can) to distinguish between objective defects rather than mere differences of taste.

1. Lyrics

Anglo-Catholic worship has an emphasis (as with the RCC and Orthodoxy) in continuity of doctrine over the centuries. This morning for Easter 2 we sang “That Easter Day with joy was bright.” (H40: 98). The Hymnal 1940 Companion says that it is taken from a a Latin hymn entitled “Aurora lucis rutilat,” via J.M. Neale’s Hymnal Noted and Hymn’s Ancient and Modern. The hymn “may be by St. Ambrose,” and dates to at least the 8th century if not the 5th.

Bad: Many praise songs are “Jesus love songs,” where the lyrics seem to express a (non-Trinatarian) secular affection for the great JC. The lyrics also tend to repeat the same idea over and over again.

This is not to say that all pre-rock band hymns are good. Even though Anglicans are (to some degree) the Via Media, there are major doctrinal differences between the Catholic and Reformed extremes of Western Christianity, such that the hymns of one might not be acceptable to the other. And the emotive (doctrinally suspect) praise songs of the past few decades have their antecedents in 19th century American hymnody.

Good: The first song of the worship “set” was the Trisagion — as Catholic and doctrinally safe as they get — albeit with an unrecognizable modern setting. The 1960s praise hymn “Bread of Life” (by Sister Suzanne Toolan) made the tail end of the hymnal era — musically like a 60s folk song with problematic voice leading and phrasing — but the text is an undeniably Biblical adaptation of John 6.

2. Reverence

Admittedly, this is the most akin to taste. We Anglo-Catholics have a visceral reaction against rock bands on Sunday morning, even though the majority of American Protestants (and more than a few Catholics) have embraced contemporary worship. On weekends, I’ve been known to sing 2- or 3- part Beetles (or Eagles) harmonies, but IMHO they have no place on Sunday.

Still, I think we can agree that there are differences in the degree of reverence to God. Are we in our lyrics, music and style reflecting the omnipotence of our great God?

Bad: There is a common concern that the CCM is worldly and doesn’t belong in church — whether because it’s schmalzy, trendy or faddish . My sense is that the churches that use this music don’t have this concern, so it seems about as productive as asking Democrats to debate Republicans over the role of the free market.

Good: A contemporary favorite is the 2004 Chris Tomlin No. 1 CCM hit “How great is our God” (#6 on today’s CCLI CCM list) The lyrics clearly emphasizes such majesty, althtough the performance style is often more 60s (or 80s or 90s)

3. Performance vs. Congregational Singing

When I go to hear a praise band, usually I have no idea what’s going on. They repeat themselves, they change keys, there’s a different tune for the bridge, they improvise, change tempo etc. For example, at my ACNA meeting the praise guitarist decided to dot the rhythm of a familiar tune.

This problem seems particularly bad when there are more than 200 people in the room: the band is performing for the audience rather than leading the congregation in singing. (TV services are also bad in this regard). There is no music on the screen and the words don’t completely show the meter or what is going on. The net effect is that the congregation — unless they know how this particular band likes to perform this particular song — doesn’t know what to expect and is partially or entirely left behind.

To be fair, organ-based choirs do this too. In either case, the effect is to discourage congregational singing — particularly by new members who are trying to figure out if they belong here.

4. Continuity with Early Generations

The emphasis on praise music seems to conclude that nothing worth playing was written before 1980 (or even 2000). For Anglican contemporary worship, that means we claim continuity of doctrine and belief with the historic undivided church — but not for key elements of the liturgy.

This seems unprecedented for the past 150 years — ever since churches began printing Hymnals. In the US, Hymnal 1940 has content from 1916, 1892 and 1872 US hymnals, as well as The English Hymnal (1906) and Hymns Ancient & Modern (1861-1889). Despite an intentional effort to make major changes in theology, style and inclusive language, Hymnal 1982 still has considerable overlap with Hymnal 1940. In its favor, Hymnal 1982 add some new hymns (“Amazing Grace”, “Joyful, joyful, we adore thee”) that were written well before 1940, and well known to Protestants outside ECUSA.

Good: A few have tried to make compromises with updates to familiar tunes. . Chris Tomlin has an updated “Amazing Grace (My Chains are Gone)” where us old fogies can sing the familiar part even if we get lost at the 21st century bridge that makes it “fresh” (and newly copyright-able).

5. Continuity Between Parishes

With a published hymnal, people are using the same songs, selected and authorized by a central authority. The lack of a hymnal (whatever style) eliminates that likelihood that going from one parish to another will have familiar music. Different churches have different expectations about what is current and relevant; for example, attending contemporary worship in Texas exposed me to music that was very very different.

Good: at our workshop, the final praise song was the 2012 Matt Redman song “Bless the Lord, oh my soul” (aka “10,000 reasons”), #2 on the recent CCM chart. Everyone in the room knew it (I didn’t know it well, but had heard it before). Now these were all people in the same diocese who had worshiped together, met regularly and probably had music directors who shared ideas. Still, I was surprised at the degree of commonality.

Unknown: Will there be a praise song from the beginning of this century that will still be sung at the end of this century? It would be interesting to track how many of the top 20 songs were more than 10 years old. If there are many, then this is like oldies radio, jazz, classical, and consistent with building up a new canon of this different style of writing and performing worship music. If not, it would suggest that contemporary worship music is inherently transitory and temporary — a feature, not a bug.

The church shaping the world - or vice versa?

Regular readers know that a major theme of this blog is defending historic Christian liturgy against efforts to conform (or chase) the church to modern cultural norms and mores. The second segment on Tuesday’s Issues Etc. podcast was “Responding to evangelical clichés: The church must transform the culture.” Host Todd Wilken interviewed Bryan Wolfmueller, a fellow LCMS pastor, a regular Issues Etc. guest and host of the Table Talk Radio podcast.

Wilken stated the premise, the belief among evangelicals that “The church's job — or one of its jobs … is the transformation of the culture.” He argued that while the church seeks to change the culture, “very often in evangelicalism, it’s the culture that’s transformed the church.”

Referring both to the historic Catholic and modern evangelical process†, Wolfmueller argued that “when you try to avoid the culture, something opposite happens: you end up absorbing the culture.”

He continued:

“With contemporary worship, the idea is to be accommodating and accessible to the culture, so the culture is setting the agenda for how the evangelical church is worshiping. And now, more and more, it’s also setting the theological agenda. ...  The more you try to avoid the culture, in some profoundly ironic and related way, the culture has a strong influence on your doctrine and practice.”

Both men argue that the solution is the Lutheran doctrine of “Two Kingdoms,” which keeps separate the sacred and the secular in opposition to Roman Catholic Church and its historic assertion of temporal and spiritual authority. (Anglicans wouldn’t use this phrase, but clearly there is a distinction  in Anglican thought between areas where the Christian Church has a position and others where it does not.)

Finally, Wolfmueller argued that the work of Jesus is not to save (or destroy) the culture, but to save sinners. My recent work studying church planting has reminded me (again and again) that Sunday worship is only one of the responsibilities of the church, and so we can’t forget as (the b-school crowd would call it) this ultimate bottom line.

† This passage suggests a particularly ironic juxtaposition with his previous week’s discussion of evangelical clichés entitled “That’s Too Roman Catholic,” a criticism of Lutheran and other liturgical Protestants.